UPENDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who holds the certificate of having passed the Intermediate Examination, 1991, conducted by the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and two-year Diploma-in-Education Course 1996-98 from Zila Shiksha and Training Institute, Jabalpur, (in short 'DIET') (Madhya Pradesh) has invoked the special appeal jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.12.1999 of the learned single Judge who dismissed the writ petition instituted by the appellant. The subject-matter of impugnment in the writ petition was the legality of advertisement dated 28.4.1999 and the Government circular dated 11,8.1997. The circular dated 11.8.1997 showed that it had been decided by the Government to fill up the posts of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools only from such candidates who have, according to the provisions of the U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, obtained B.T.C., Hindustani Teachers Certificate, Junior Teachers Certificate and Teaching Certificates from institutions run by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and to rescind with immediate effect the equivalence to B.T.C. granted to other training courses and degrees/diplomas. So far as impugned advertisement dated 28.4.1999 is concerned, it has been envisaged therein that only those candidates could apply for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the Junior Basic Schools situated in rural areas who have had to their credit the Basic Teacher Certificate called B.T.C. awarded by Zila Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan, Gorakhpur [Rajkiye Kanya Diksha Vidyalay) upto 1998 besides other qualification as delineated in the Government Circular dated 11.8.1997. 'Diploma in Education was earlier known as Buniyadi Shiksha Pramanpatra of Madhya Pradesh, which was equivalent to B.T.C. of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) The question that emerges for consideration is whether the appellant was eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools run by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad. The requisite academic qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools under Rule 8 of the U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules. 1981, is ; "Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education Uttar Pradesh or any other qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher Certificate, Hindustani Teacher Certificate. Junior Teacher Certificate, Certificate of teaching or any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto.' The appellant, as stated supra, does not hold training qualification consisting of Basic Teacher Certificate, Hindustani Teacher Certificate or Junior Teacher Certificate. What he holds is 'Diploma in Education (in short "D.Ed.") which was awarded to him after he completed two years' course from DIET, Jabalpur (M.P.). It has been submitted by Sri Arvfnd Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the aforesaid certificate awarded by DIET, Jabalpur (M.P.) was earlier recognised as equivalent to Basic Teacher Certificate (B,T.C.) of Uttar Pradesh as is evident from the circular No. (31/20490-639/15-3 (25)/85-86 dated 16.3.1986 issued by Director of Education (Basic) Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the stay petition but its equivalence to B.T.C.. as stated supra, has been rescinded by the Government vide circular dated 11.8.1997. It has been canvassed by the learned counsel that DIET. Jabalpur (M.P.) is a recognised Institution as per the provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, an Act enacted to provide for the establishment of a National Council for teacher education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development for teachers' education system throughout the country ; the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standard in the Teachers Education System : and for matters connected therewith and that being so, proceeds the submission, the Government Circular de-recognising the certificate awarded by the DIET. Jabalpur has the effect of over-riding the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act. 1993, which militates against the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel on proviso to Section 11 of the U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972, as substituted by the U. P. Basic Education (Amendment) (Second) Ordinance, 1999. In aid of his contention that subsequent de-recognition would not deprive the appellant of the benefit of qualification acquired prior to de-recognition, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the diploma in education awarded to the petitioner by the DIET, Jabalpur IM.P.) was a training course equivalent to B.T.C. of Uttar Pradesh prior to the impugned circular dated 9.11.1997 and the appellant had obtained the said Diploma in Education before the commencement of the U. P. Basic Education (Amendment) (Second) Ordinance. 1999 and hence, the appellant was in any case, entitled to be considered for appointment. In opposition, the learned standing counsel advanced the submissions that the provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education Act. 1993 would not override the relevant serviced rules made under the provisions of the U. P. Basic Education Act. 1972 and further that the recognition of a certificate of teaching or any other training course as equivalent to B.T.C. was within the exclusive domain of the State Government as per Rule 8 of the U. P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 and since the equivalence was withdrawn by the Government, the appellant could not claim entitlement to be considered for appointment merely because earlier, the 'Diploma-in-Education' of Madhya Pradesh was accorded equivalence to B.T.C. of Uttar Pradesh.

(3.) We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made across the bar. So far as the National Council for Teacher Education Act. 1993 is concerned, it was enacted, as stated supra, to provide for the establishment of a National Council of Teachers Education with a view to accomplishing planned and coordinated development for teachers education system throughout the country and regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teachers education system and therefore, in case, any provision in the U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972, or rule made thereunder is found to be in conflict with any provision embodied in the aforestated Central Act, the same will have to be discounted to the extent of inconsistency in view of the provisions contained in Article 254 of the Constitution of India, clause (1) of which provides that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list, then, subject to the provisions of sub-clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the taw made by the Legislature of such State, of, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause (2) of Article 254 visualises that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in the State : provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the Stale.